首页> 外文期刊>Radiology >Digital slot-scan charge-coupled device radiography versus AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography for detection of simulated nodules and interstitial disease in a chest phantom.
【24h】

Digital slot-scan charge-coupled device radiography versus AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography for detection of simulated nodules and interstitial disease in a chest phantom.

机译:数字缝隙扫描电荷耦合设备X射线照相术与AMBER和Bucky屏幕胶片X射线照相术相比,可检测胸部幻像中的模拟结节和间质疾病。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of full-field slot-scan charge-coupled device (CCD)-based digital radiography in the detection of simulated chest diseases in clinical conditions versus that of two screen-film techniques: advanced multiple beam equalization radiography (AMBER) and Bucky radiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Simulated nodules and interstitial nodular and interstitial linear lesions were attached onto an anthropomorphic chest phantom. One hundred sixty-eight lesions were distributed over 25 configurations. A posteroanterior chest radiograph of each configuration was obtained with each technique. The images were presented to six observers. Each lesion was assigned one of two outcome scores: "detected" or "not detected." False-positive readings were evaluated. Differences between the imaging methods were analyzed by using a semiparametric logistic regression model. RESULTS: For simulated nodules and interstitial linear disease, no statistically significant difference was foundin diagnostic performance between CCD digital radiography and AMBER. The detection of simulated interstitial nodular disease was better with CCD digital radiography than with AMBER: Sensitivity was 71% (77 of 108 interstitial nodular lesions) with CCD digital radiography but was 56% (60 of 108 lesions) with AMBER (P =.041). Better results for the detection of all lesion types in the mediastinum were observed with CCD digital radiography than with Bucky screen-film radiography: Sensitivity was 45% (227 of 504 total simulated lesions) with CCD digital radiography but was 24% (119 of 504 lesions) with Bucky radiography (P <.001). There were fewer false-positive observations with CCD digital radiography (35 [5.7%] of 609 observations) than with Bucky radiography (47 [9.5%] of 497 observations; P =.012). CONCLUSION: Differences were in favor of the full-field slot-scan CCD digital radiographic technique. This technique provides a digital alternative to AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography.
机译:目的:评价基于全场缝隙扫描电荷耦合器件(CCD)的数字X线摄影在临床条件下与两种屏幕电影技术相比在模拟胸部疾病的检测中的诊断性能:先进的多光束均衡X射线摄影(琥珀色)和Bucky射线照相。材料与方法:模拟结节,间质结节和间质线性病变附着在拟人化的胸模上。 168个病变分布在25种形态上。通过每种技术获得每种形态的后前胸X光片。图像被呈现给六位观察者。为每个病变分配两个结果评分之一:“检测到”或“未检测到”。评估假阳性读数。通过使用半参数逻辑回归模型分析了成像方法之间的差异。结果:对于模拟结节和间质性线性疾病,CCD数字射线照相术与AMBER的诊断性能无统计学差异。 CCD数字放射照相法比AMBER更好地模拟了间质性结节病:CCD数字放射照相法的敏感性为71%(108个间质性结节性病变中的77个),而AMBER灵敏度为56%(108个病变性中的60个病变)(P = .041) )。 CCD数字射线照相比Bucky屏幕胶片射线照相观察到的纵隔所有病变类型的检测结果更好:CCD数字射线照相的敏感性为45%(总共504个模拟病变中的227个),但灵敏度为24%(504个中的119个)病变),使用Bucky射线照相术(P <.001)。 CCD数字射线照相术(609项观察结果中的35 [5.7%])比巴基射线照相术(497项观察结果中的47 [9.5%])更少(P = .012)。结论:差异是有利于全场缝扫描CCD数字射线照相技术。该技术为AMBER和Bucky屏幕胶片射线照相提供了一种数字替代方案。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号